Bugby v. The State Life Insurance Company

Filing 3

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION -......IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 6, 2017, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with thisOrder, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Response to Court due by 9/6/2017.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/1/2017. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

HANNELORE BUGBY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:17-CV-2345 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. “Courts have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94
(2010). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be
established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. National Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d
1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and quoted case omitted). Statutes conferring diversity
jurisdiction are to be strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992),
and the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction, here the
plaintiff. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).
In this case, plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a basis for federal jurisdiction, but contains
allegations concerning the parties’ places of residence, domicile, and principal place of business.
Complaint at 1, ¶¶ 1, 3-4.1 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state law causes of action, so it appears
plaintiff is attempting to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete

1

Section II of the Civil Cover Sheet, “Basis of Jurisdiction,” was left blank and therefore also
does not indicate a basis of federal jurisdiction.

diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Buckley
v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir. 1991). “Complete diversity of citizenship
exists where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.”
OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007).
To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual allegations
of each party’s state of citizenship. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987);
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is well established that allegations concerning the parties’ residency do
not satisfy requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction. Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760
F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014); Pattiz v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300, 301 (8th Cir. 1968) (citing
cases). “In both common parlance and legal usage, ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ have overlapping but
distinct meanings. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1502 (10th ed. 2014) (explaining ‘a resident
is not necessarily either a citizen or a domiciliary’); New Oxford American Dictionary 1485 (3d ed.
2010) (defining ‘resident’ as ‘a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis’
(emphasis added)).” Reece, 760 F.3d 778.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that plaintiff is a “resident of St. Louis County, Missouri.”
Complaint at 1, ¶ 1. This allegation is insufficient to establish that plaintiff is a citizen of Missouri.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant is a “foreign insurance company” “domiciled in
the State of Indiana, with a principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.” Complaint at 1,
¶¶ 2-3. For purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists in federal court, a
corporation is considered a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant is “domiciled” in
Indiana is not equivalent to an allegation that defendant is incorporated in Indiana. A corporate
domicile is the “place considered by law as the center of corporate affairs, where the corporation’s
2

functions are discharged.” Black’s Law Dictionary 501 (7th ed. 1999) (explaining that a corporate
domicile is usually “its state of incorporation or the state in which it maintains its principal place of
business.”) (emphasis added).2
Plaintiff’s complaint is procedurally defective because it does not contain sufficient
allegations of jurisdictional facts to establish the existence of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff will
be required to amend her complaint to correct this defect, and will be granted five (5) days to do so.
Plaintiff’s failure to timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 6, 2017, plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this
Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 1st day of September, 2017.

2

In Section III of the Civil Cover Sheet, “Citizenship of Principal Parties,” plaintiff checked
a box indicating that defendant is incorporated in or has its principal place of business in Missouri.
3